Senate Rejects Resolution To Block Trump Iran Strikes As Collins Faces Criticism

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected an effort to curb President Donald J. Trump’s authority to conduct further military strikes against Iran, underscoring continued divisions in Washington over war powers and America’s role in the escalating conflict.

The procedural vote failed 52-47, marking yet another unsuccessful attempt by lawmakers to invoke the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and restrict the administration’s military actions. Since hostilities began, Democrats have pushed multiple resolutions aimed at reining in the president—none of which have succeeded.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican often critical of Trump, ultimately voted against the measure while still emphasizing the constitutional role of Congress in matters of war.

“I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said.

The vote comes amid heightened scrutiny over the duration and scope of the conflict. President Trump previously warned that Iran’s “whole civilization” could be destroyed before later agreeing to a temporary two-week ceasefire—part of a broader strategy to force Tehran to the negotiating table.

While most Republicans opposed the resolution, cracks did emerge. Sen. Rand Paul sided with Democrats in support of limiting the president’s authority, while Sen. John Fetterman broke with his party to oppose the measure. Sen. Jim Justice did not cast a vote.

Despite voting down the resolution, several Republicans signaled concern about the timeline of the conflict as it approaches a key legal threshold. Under current law, presidents must end military engagements within 60 days if Congress has not granted authorization.

President Trump initially projected a swift operation lasting four to five weeks. However, as that timeline stretches closer to the statutory limit, lawmakers are increasingly calling for clarity on next steps—even as the administration signals that the conflict may be nearing its conclusion.

“The president recognized ahead of time when he first went into Iran that this was going to be a short-term thing, right?” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “We’re probably not going to be dealing with 60 days. Well, here we are,” she said.

Collins indicated that if hostilities extend beyond the 60-day mark, she would expect Congress to formally weigh in—and suggested she may not support continued military action without authorization.

“It is very likely that I would vote not to authorize further hostilities,” Collins said.

“I have said from the very beginning that if the military hostilities in Iran continue to that 60th day, then I believe the War Powers Act is implemented, and the president would need congressional authorization to continue the war in Iran,” she added.

She also drew a firm line regarding the potential deployment of U.S. ground forces.

“Another red line,” she said, would be deploying ground troops in Iran, “except in extraordinary circumstances” such as rescue operations.

Democrats, however, have seized on the vote to attack Collins, particularly as she faces a competitive reelection campaign. The Maine Democratic Party accused her of enabling continued military engagement without proper congressional oversight.

“Susan Collins once again sided with Donald Trump, voting against a war powers resolution and doubling down on her support for his unauthorized war with Iran,” the party said.

“Just weeks ago, Collins cast a key vote against legislation that would have stopped Trump from dragging the United States into war without congressional approval. Today, she did it again – refusing to hold Trump accountable and allowing continued U.S. military action without authorization from Congress,” Johnston said.

“And throughout it all, Collins has personally benefited. Since the conflict began, her household’s stock portfolio – including investments in gas and oil – has climbed, increasing by as much as $24,480,” she said.

Despite Democratic criticism, the failed resolution highlights a broader reality: Congress remains divided, and efforts to constrain President Trump’s commander-in-chief authority—particularly during an active geopolitical confrontation—continue to fall short.